I am not very knowledgeable with Russian history,so forgive me if this question look silly,but what was the actual difference in practice(since their respective ideological “starting points” was clearly different)as with “revolutionary defensism”,”social patriotism” and “expansionism”(both in the game and in history)
Viewing post in Social Democracy: Petrograd 1917 comments
Here's a (GREATLY oversimplified) table of the four parties:
Terms:
The main issue was the war - when there's a difference between factions of a party, it's usually over this:
- Defeatist - The war should end, even if it means a revolution or a civil war.
- Internationalist - The war should end
- Revolutionary Defencist - The war should continue, so we can protect the revolution from the Germans!
- Social Patriot - We should continue the war until we win!
- Conquest - We should win the war, and get territory from Austria or Turkey!
The parties had different ideas as to how to interact with the Provisional Government.
- Overthrow - Basically, red October
- All-Socialist Government - the Provisional Government should be replaced by a coalition of only socialist parties (basically, anyone who wasn't a Kadet).
- Coalition - We should participate in the Provisional Government - even if that means a coalition with other parties we don't agree with.
| Issue | Bolsheviks | Menshevik-Internationalist | Menshevik-Defencist | Left-SR | Right-SR | Left-Kadets | Right-Kadets |
| The War | Defeatist | Internationalist | Revolutionary Defencist | Internationalist | Revolutionary Defencist | Social Patriot | Conquest |
| Provisional Government | Overthrow it! | All-Socialist Government | Coalition | All-Socialist Government | Coalition | Coalition | Coalition |
| Land Reform/Industry | Nationalizations | Workers' councils; no rural policy at the start of the game | Workers' councils; no rural policy at the start of the game | Workers' councils; Full land reform | Workers' councils; Full land reform | Allows trade unions, but no councils; maybe a little land reform | Maybe trade unions, but no councils; No land reform |
| Base of support | Soldiers, workers | Workers | Workers | Peasants | Peasants | The middle class | The middle class |
As a Russian, I can confirm that you have conveyed the essence correctly.
I would also add that an important specificity of expansionism, which Russian liberals actually had, was quite spontaneous and not very structured. That is, yes, they had the logic of 19th century imperialism: Russia must get the Bosphorus Strait in order to sell grain to the foreign market more effectively (No kidding - Milyukov said this at one of the Duma sessions). But it was during the First World War that the liberals went to the right on this issue. Before that, for example, in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, they promoted "defeatism", only in a liberal legend.
What is the idea: After the victory over Napoleon, reaction and strict conservatism set in in Russia, after the defeat in the Crimean War of 1853-1856, Tsar Alexander II began the Great (liberal) reforms. As a result, for the sake of reforms, liberals must desire defeat in the war. However, suddenly, this turned out to be extremely unpopular among the army and many patriotically minded strata of the population. And already during the years of the First World War, the tactics of "expansion and war" were extremely important in order to secure the support of conservative officers and generals. In fact, the generals agreed to hand over power to the provisional government because the liberals convinced them that in this way they would be able to continue the imperial war more effectively and better! Milyukov spoke about this in his famous 1916 speech "Stupidity or Treason" (Глупость или измена). In it, he referred to the statement of one loyal tsarist general: "I may be a fool, but I am not a traitor." And Milyukov spoke of "traitors or idiots" in the tsar's inner circle, who were hindering the country and victory in the war. Thanks to this, by the beginning of the February Revolution, literally only one general in all of Russia supported the Tsar. All the rest were ready to hand over power to the liberals.
In general, In that way Kadets attracted the right-wing electorate (the Black Hundreds became somehow irrelevant after the disappearance of the tsar) and people from the Military Command. As one Russian proverb says: "If you can't beat them, lead them".
Social patriots were more prone to nationalism. A rather sad example of this is the Marxist-Menshevik Georgy Plekhanov. After the war began, he stood up for Tsarist Russia even before any revolution. And about that he didn’t really use much of “Marxist arguments,” and even sometimes said horrifying things. I remember reading how he quarreled with German internationalists after the outbreak of the World War, because he told them at a meeting that “as a Russian, I can’t wait to see your German flesh on a Russian army bayonet!”
I guess in 1914 almost everyone in Europe went nuts
Revolutionary defencism, I think, is the most obvious. In Russia, the democratic revolution has won, Russia's allies are democratic England and France, in Germany and Austria-Hungary - the authoritarian imperial regime of the Kaiser and Emperor, so we need to defend our young revolution in a single democratic alliance from foreign reactionary occupiers.
In Germany, for example, the SPD took this position immediately after the war began.
1. Kaiser's Germany is more democratic than Tsarist Russia (true), so Germany should be supported as a more progressive force.
2. In Germany, everyone thought that Germany was defending itself. I know that this sounds strange today. I mean, World War I literally began with Germany declaring war on Russia. But in Germany, this was successfully presented as "defense against Russia, which was preparing to attack us first." Why did this sound convincing to the Germans: Russia was mobilizing at the time of the declaration of war. Why? Of all the countries participating in the war, Russia had the longest time to mobilize (a large country, bad railways). And the German Blitzkrieg Plan (Schlieffen Plan) implied a quick capitulation of France even before Russia had time to finish mobilizing. By that time, Austria-Hungary had already declared war on Serbia and begun its occupation - in response to this, Russia began mobilization and said that Austria-Hungary should immediately withdraw its troops from Serbia. The German General Staff began to panic - if they did not start first now, then after Russia's mobilization was over, it would be too late. So they conducted a media campaign about "military provocation on the part of Russia". Incidentally, it was precisely because the Germans sincerely thought that the war was defensive that the post-war conditions were such a shock and humiliation for them. Official recognition of the start of the First World War as Germany's fault? But we were the ones who defended ourselves! We were taken in by Wilson's fourteen points and promises of a fair peace! A bit off-topic, but I hope it was interesting and informative
I learned most of the revolutionary history from Hasegawa's The February Revolution, Petrograd, 1917. The End of the Tsarist Regime and the Birth of Dual Power (2017) and Lowe's Mastering Twentieth Century Russian History (2002). The first book is great if you enjoy reading scenic accounts of the uprising, the second is notable for comparing the soviet, liberal, revisionist, and contemporary historians' views side by side.
My understanding is that there were three components to war attitudes: whether to continue the war, to pursue what war goal, and, of course, the rationale behind the previous two.
Defeatism: Lose the war. The defeat would spark a revolution for a socialist regime. Once Lenin's solitary view, later gained popularity as war weariness mounted and Lenin himself returned to Russia.
Defencism: Defend Mother Russia, despite whatever regime is reigning. Plekhanov's view.
Internationalism 1: End the war, not through military victories but by proletariats across borders jointly disobeying their autocratic / bourgeoise oppressors. The war was imperialist in nature, and they wanted no annexations and indemnities. Martov's pre-Frebruary view.
Internationalism 2 / Revolutionary War View: Continue the war. War destabilizes the belligerents and sparks socialist uprisings. When proletariats took power, the war would end spontaneously. Bukharin's view.
Revolutionary Defencism: Continue the war to protect the revolution. Some also wanted to recapture lost territories. Dominant within the Menshevik after February.
Social Patriotism: Nationalism with the socialism influence. Most socialist workers had this view early in 1914 (?)
Expansionism: Win the war and take the spoil, which meant on top of recapturing lost / Slavic territories, capturing enemy territory was also important. Miliukov's view.
Notwithstanding, these attitudes might not have been as meaningful labels to individuals among the masses as they were to the party leaders. Likely, many Bolshevik supporters might have cared more about bread and war casualty than about defeatism.